[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Amol Tukaram Salve vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2592
REVN-274-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2024
Amol S/o Tukaram Salve,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Labor,
R/o.: At post Pimpalner, Tq. Lonar,
Dist. Buldhana ...Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Kranti Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad.
2. Kisan S/o Sakharam Salve,
Age: 65 years, Occu: Labor,
R/o. Pargaorkar Hospital,
Pushpanagar, Aurangabad
3. Lata W/o Ratan Unhale
Age: 33 years, Occu: Labor
R/o. High Court Colony,
Satara Parisar, Aurangabad ...Respondents
***
• Mr. C. C. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant
• Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the Respondent No.1/State
• Mr. Aadil Shaikh h/f Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.
2 and 3
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 21, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 22, 2026
ORDER :
1. In the present Revision, there is challenge to judgment and
order dated 17.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad on application Exhibit 28 in Sessions Case No. 226/2024,
by which application of present Respondent under Section 227 of Code
PAGE 1 OF 8
REVN-274-2024.odt
of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C") was granted discharging them from
offence under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code ("IPC").
2. Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would point out
that, Revision Petitioner is brother of deceased Avinash Salve. He
further pointed out that, on the basis of report of wife of deceased
Amruta Avinash Salve, Police Station, Kranti Chowk registered a crime
bearing no. 35/2024 initially for charge of Section 364 of IPC. That,
subsequently, dead body of informant's husband Avinash was found and
thereafter charge under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC
came to be added. It is pointed out that, initially deceased went missing
on 17.03.2023 and he did not return for sufficiently on time.
3. He further pointed out that, dead body of informant's
husband was found in burned and decomposed condition. That, later on
it was revealed that, in the backdrop of previous dispute, her husband
was done to death and thereafter his body was set on fire. That, there
was extra-judicial confession as well as memorandum of disclosure
under Section 27 of Evidence Act. Learned Counsel pointed out to that,
statement of witness namely, Uttam Unhale, before whom there was
extra-judicial confession of committing murder of Avinash. That, apart
from above evidence, there were strong incriminating circumstances
PAGE 2 OF 8
REVN-274-2024.odt
suggesting involvement of present Respondents, however, learned Trial
Court discharged them by giving benefit of Section 227 Cr.P.C.
According to him, in the light of availability of sufficient material,
learned Trial Court ought not to have granted discharge that too by in a
way appreciating the evidence, which is not expected at this stage. He
pointed out that, sufficiency of material only to be tested. That, there
was ample material to make accused face charge as well as trial,
however, because of discharge of both accused, complainant has suffered
injustice at the very inception stage itself. For all above reasons, he
urges to set aside the order of passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge discharging the accused.
4. Learned APP would support above submissions.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Accused would
justify the impugned order by stating that, there was apparently no
material to connect the Respondents herein in above crime and,
therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly given the benefit of discharge.
6. Here, there is challenge to grant of discharge as prayed
under Section 227 by present Respondents, who were arraigned as
Accused nos. 2 and 3. In the line of above submissions, copy of charge-
sheet is sifted by limited purpose of ascertaining whether there was or
PAGE 3 OF 8
REVN-274-2024.odt
no material for extending the benefit of discharge.
7. Papers show that, informant's husband Avinash, who was
said to be a driver, had left the house on 03.01.2023 to visit his brother
Rahul Kisan Salve at Mhada Colony. He did not return and, therefore,
on due search, when he was not found, missing was lodged at Kranti
Chowk police station on 17.03.2023, which was registered vide
no.18/2023. However, on 15.02.2024 after 11 months or so, informant
reported that, her husband was kidnapped by Rahul @ Balya Kisan
Salve. On strength of such statement, crime bearing no. 35/2024 seems
to have been registered for offence. Two days thereafter on 15.02.2024
accused Rahul allegedly gave memorandum of disclosure while in
custody of police that, on 03.01.2023, he took deceased on the motorcycle
near the lake at Sudhakar Nagar at Dhule-Solapur Road and while
under influence of liquor, there was quarrel between them and he
assaulted deceased by means of danda and subsequently, stuff the body
in a gunny bag and buried it in the pit.
Informant gave supplementary statement on 31.02.2024
that, on 12.02.2024 her brother-in-law Ashish brought Uttam Unhale to
their house where he gave extra-judicial confession about committing
murder of informant's husband and, therefore, police was duly informed.
On the strength of which, there was addition of charge of Section 302,
PAGE 4 OF 8
REVN-274-2024.odt
201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
After completion of investigation, along with Rahul, Kisan
Sakharam Salve and Lata Ratan Unhale were also charge-sheeted by
invoking Section 34 of IPC.
Accused nos. 2 and 3 preferred application Exhibit 28 urging
to discharge them from the above crime, which was ultimately allowed
and brother of deceased i.e. Revision Petitioner is disgruntled by the
same.
8. Before adverting to merits of the case, it would be just and
proper to spell out settled legal position while considering discharge
application under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly settled
position that, at such stage, Court dealing with such application is
merely expected to determine existence of prima facie material for
proceeding to frame charge and make accused persons face trial.
Material gathered during investigation is expected to be sifted with
limited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to
proceed against accused. Neither in-depth analysis nor meticulous
analysis of evidence is expected at such stage. Thus, the only duty of
Court is to ascertain whether there is prima facie material suggesting
existence of essential ingredients for the offences, which are alleged to
be committed.
PAGE 5 OF 8
REVN-274-2024.odt
Above position has been time and again reiterated since the
cases of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4, and a
decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and
another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others. (2014) 11
SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency (2019) 7 SCC
148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC
651.
9. Going by the sequence of events, as are emerging from the
charge-sheet, it is seen that, deceased Avinash, who was driver by the
occupation, had left the house on 03.01.2023 and as he had not
returned, initially missing was lodged on 17.03.2023 and thereafter on
15.02.2024 i.e. almost 11 months thereafter, informant wife leveled
allegations against one Rahul @ Balya Kisan Salve. On the strength of
which, charge under Section 364 IPC alone came to be applied against
only Rahul Salve. It is during his arrest, police machinery seems to
have obtained memorandum of disclosure under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act on 17.02.2024, wherein, he allegedly gave disclosure that,
due to previous dispute, on 03.01.2023 he nitially took deceased on his
PAGE 6 OF 8
REVN-274-2024.odt
motorcycle initially to Kanchanwadi and from there on Dhule-Solapur
Road and thereafter committed his murder and buried the dead body.
Thus, here, the investigating machinery claims to have
secured memorandum of disclosure at the instance of main accused
Rahul alone. Till this stage, neither wife of deceased nor anybody else
named present Respondents to be accomplice of main accused Rahul in
the above episode. Therefore, except disclosure statement by accused
Rahul in custody of police, there nothing incriminating as regards to
present Respondents is concerned.
10. Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner had taken this
Court to the supplementary statement of wife of deceased, wherein, she
reported to police that, on information received from her relative Uttam
Daulat Unhale, it has emerged that, her husband was initially
kidnapped and done to death. She further reported that, on 12.02.2024
her brother in law Ashish Salve brought Uttam Daulat Unhale to their
house and he reported the above act of Rahul and, therefore, she gave
supplementary statement but it is apparently on 21.02.2024. Even in
her supplementary statement, there is no reference or whisper about
role played by present Respondents. On visiting statement of Uttam
Daulat Unhale, from whom all claimed to have learned about murder of
deceased, a statement which is also recorded at a belated stage i.e. on
PAGE 7 OF 8
REVN-274-2024.odt
28.02.2024, wherein, he stated about one day Rahul coming to his
house, consuming liquor and giving extra-judicial confession.
Therefore, except memorandum of disclosure under Section
27 or except alleged extra-judicial confession, there is no incriminating
material in the entire charge-sheet. Moreover, from the impugned order,
it is emerging that, learned Trial Court has called for case diary from
the investigating officer and he too informed the Court that except
disclosure statement of accused no.1, there is no material against
accused nos. 2 and 3. Resultantly, learned Trial Court, in the considered
opinion of this Court, has not committed any error in allowing the
application of present Respondents for discharge. Apparently, case is
based on circumstantial evidence, sequence and chain of circumstances
is not shown to be getting complete against present Respondents, who
are accused nos. 2 and 3, on the contrary, there is no material,
incriminating or even otherwise to connect them with the death of
deceased Avinash. Thus, there being no merit in the application, the
same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 8 OF 8
